Interesing scenario: Growing pot, but killed two intruders...

This is a discussion on Interesing scenario: Growing pot, but killed two intruders... within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; I read this in the paper today.
2 intruders killed at Puyallup marijuana grow home | www.kirotv.com
The guy was growing pot in his house. ...

Interesing scenario: Growing pot, but killed two intruders...

The guy was growing pot in his house. Two masked thugs broke in to steal his pot, and he killed them. I guess it is best to call the cops and report the intruders that you killed, and get busted for the drugs, than it is to not call and probably get charged with murder if you try to cover up the killing.

I like what the sheriff had to say though: "It may be stupid and reckless to have an illegal grow operation in the house, but it does not waive your lawfull right to self-defense."

They took care of the sittuation, then waited outside for warrants to show up. The sheriff says they will probably not charge the guy for shooting, but may pursue drug charges. It is made even more interesting that his 9 year old son was with him.

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Very interesting. I'm actually (and pleasantly) surprised at the "mellow" tone of local law enforcement. Mus be something in the air....

I think it is the pot in the air. There seems to be a lot of that lately, even though it is still illegal to grow, buy or sell it. And the federal law hasn't changed.

But yes, it was refreshing to hear the sheriffs department recognize out self-defense laws even in this context. I will be interested to hear if they plan on doing anything with child endagerment for growing with the child in the house, which tends to draw unwanted attention.

IMO, it entirely depends on what kind of person you are. In my neck of the woods, organised crime handles the majority of the pot growing and first-stage distribution. This means that the upper echelons of the pot-distribution are peopled by scum. OTOH, I have a student friend (neuroscience post-doc) who grows his own, too, for personal consumption and for sharing (which is technically dealing under Canadian law).

Now, no one loses their right to self-defense, but the principle of 'what kind of person are you?' leaps to mind when I ask how aggressive the charges should be against a grower. Of course, if balaclava wearing scum are breaking into your place to rob you of your pot (ostensibly for the monetary value), then you might be sharing your pot with the wrong people.

Statistically, dementia is one of the greatest defeatable threats to my loved ones. The solution is to fund charities that hunt for a cure. This will also reduces the total amount of my family that has to go through it. I'm basically racing against odds.

I like what the sheriff had to say though: "It may be stupid and reckless to have an illegal grow operation in the house, but it does not waive your lawfull right to self-defense."

I do like the sentiment as well, and agree in principle that it should apply in the case of something like home invasion.

But I've got a real problem with the concept when taking to logical conclusion to cover the various crimes that exist. Where is the dividing line? After all, in such cases where a person doesn't have every right to be there, or where the object of the crime is what in fact drew the "attack" by the other individuals, then it doesn't seem right that a criminal's claims of "self-defense" should be taken at face value.

I think this is a good example of why many/most instances of "Castle" and use-of-force statutes have such wording, specifically describing that a person must not contribute to the situation, must be in a place in which he has every right to be, must not himself be engaging in crimes, etc.

Seems to me that engaging in a criminal enterprise would specifically disallow application of such self-defense statutes, most particularly in cases where those entering were drawn there because of the criminal enterprise itself. Was that the case here? Had this been a simple burglary or home invasion unrelated to the grow operation, I might agree with the sheriff. But, not in situations where this isn't the case.

I do like the sentiment as well, and agree in principle that it should apply in the case of something like home invasion.

But I've got a real problem with the concept when taking to logical conclusion to cover the various crimes that exist. Where is the dividing line? After all, in such cases where a person doesn't have every right to be there, or where the object of the crime is what in fact drew the "attack" by the other individuals, then it doesn't seem right that a criminal's claims of "self-defense" should be taken at face value.

I think this is a good example of why many/most instances of "Castle" and use-of-force statutes have such wording, specifically describing that a person must not contribute to the situation, must be in a place in which he has every right to be, must not himself be engaging in crimes, etc.

Seems to me that engaging in a criminal enterprise would specifically disallow application of such self-defense statutes, most particularly in cases where those entering were drawn there because of the criminal enterprise itself. Was that the case here? Had this been a simple burglary or home invasion unrelated to the grow operation, I might agree with the sheriff. But, not in situations where this isn't the case.

Interesting. I believe the pot grower has the right to self-defense. Yes he apparently was breaking the law, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to protect himself from another criminal. That's a slippery slope. Where is the line drawn. If you're not wearing your seat belt, is it illegal for you to shoot a carjacker? If the only crime was growing the pot, and the homeowner wasn't engaged in some violent criminal behavior, then I'm glad he was able to defend himself.

Statistically, dementia is one of the greatest defeatable threats to my loved ones. The solution is to fund charities that hunt for a cure. This will also reduces the total amount of my family that has to go through it. I'm basically racing against odds.

We appear to be at the crux of legalization of marijuana. The transition phase will be problematic as the federal government and each state work out the boundaries of law, but eventually this problem will be resolved.

The so-called "War on Drugs" has been a war on Americans and the sooner this issue is laid to rest the better. Too many productive and valuable lives have been destroyed by our insane drugs policy. Thanks, Nixon.

Statistically, dementia is one of the greatest defeatable threats to my loved ones. The solution is to fund charities that hunt for a cure. This will also reduces the total amount of my family that has to go through it. I'm basically racing against odds.

Yes he apparently was breaking the law, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to protect himself from another criminal. That's a slippery slope. Where is the line drawn. If you're not wearing your seat belt, is it illegal for you to shoot a carjacker?

That was my point. It would take a defining "line" being drawn, yes. IMO, that line would be during engagement of a criminal enterprise or act against others. But I agree that would be the sticky part of such a thing.

Still, in this case it's hard to argue the guy's criminal enterprise didn't itself draw the "attack." For what it's worth, I'd think that's where the dividing line really should be.

Now, had he merely caught a burglar rooting around the "china and silver" at night, IMO that would something else entirely.

Agree. Many (maybe not all) SYG and Castle Doctrines have a caveat where SD won't hold water if performed during the commission of a crime or during an illegal act. Now that the "use" of MJ is legal in WA, how does that affect those possessing an acre of the stuff in the raw?

We had a similar story locally a couple years ago. A couple of teenagers were shot while breaking into a home through the window. *The victim was arrested on drug charges. I remember it well because there was an uproar on a moms board I used to frequent that the homeowner shot 2 teens, one 15, the other 16. *I remember responding that if someone was coming through my window, I wouldn't ask for ID or date of birth. Our sheriff's response was:

"Preliminary information gathered at the scene indicates that the victim was protecting his wife and his home against a masked intruder and his partner," said Sheriff Grady Judd. "His actions appear to be that of a reasonable person protecting himself, his loved ones and his property."

Something I never realized was it's apparently standard protocol to have your home searched, even in a self defense scenario:
"As standard protocol, Polk County Sheriff's Office detectives searched the home of the victims. During the search, they discovered illegal narcotics in the residence. Oyola-Aponte, 37, was arrested and charged with Possession of Narcotics."